Ex parte Bonin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2001

08682876 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RICHARD L. BONIN
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11.
Claim 10 has been indicated by the examiner as being directed to allowable
subject matter and is no longer on appeal before us.
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
2
The invention is directed to a roller-type motor wherein the moving part, or
motor of the motor rolls on the inside of the stator such that the motion is like a
barrel rolling inside of another barrel. The motor is used in high-torque, low
revolutions applications.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A roller-type electric motor, comprising:
a housing having a hollow interior and an inner wall;
a plurality of stator poles each of predetermined electrical polarity and
positioned at said inner wall of said housing;
a roller having an outer surface and positioned for rolling movement
within said hollow interior of said housing,
a plurality of roller poles each of predetermined magnetic polarity and
positioned on said outer surface of said roller, a first one of said roller
poles having a magnetic polarity opposite the magnetic polarity of a first
one of said stator poles so that said first roller pole is drawn through
magnetic action into contact with said first stator pole; and
control means for reversing the magnetic polarity of said first stator pol
e
wh
en
sai
d
firs
t
roll
er
pol
e
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
3
of
op
po
sit
e
ma
gn
eti
c
pol
arit
y is
in
co
nta
ct
the
re
wit
h
to
rep
el
thr
ou
gh
ma
gn
eti
c
act
ion
sai
d
firs
t
roll
er
pol
e
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
4
whi
le
si
mu
lta
ne
ou
sly
pre
det
er
mi
ne
d
roll
er
pol
es
adj
ac
ent
to
sai
d
firs
t
roll
er
pol
e
are
ma
gn
eti
call
y
dra
wn
to
wa
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
5
rds
pre
det
er
mi
ne
d
sta
tor
pol
es
adj
ac
ent
to
sai
d
firs
t
sta
tor
pol
e
to
im
par
t
roll
ing
mo
ve
me
nt
to
sai
d
roll
er
wit
hin
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
6
sai
d
ho
usi
ng.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Welch 3,452,227 Jun. 24, 1969
Rosain et al. (Rosain) 4,329,607 May 11, 1982
Kawai 5,030,866 Jul. 09,
1991
Jacobsen et al. (Jacobsen)5,252,870 Oct. 12, 1993
Burgbacher et al. (Burgbacher) 5,331,245 Jul. 19, 1994
Satake et al. (Satake) 5,545,943 Aug. 13, 1996
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as anticipated by Welch.
Claims 2-9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Welch and Jacobsen with regard to claims 2 and
11, adding Burgbacher to this combination with regard to claims 3 and 4 and further
adding Kawai with regard to claim 5. With regard to claims 6-8, the examiner cites
Welch and Satake, adding Rosain to this combination with regard to claim 9.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
7
We affirm.
We turn first to independent claim 1. We agree with the examiner that
Welch discloses all that is claimed, including the housing, a plurality of stator
poles, a roller, a plurality of roller poles positioned as claimed, and a control means
for reversing magnetic polarity of the stator poles, as claimed.
Appellant contends that there are Amajor differences between the device of
subject invention and that of Welch [brief-page 5].
First, appellant contends that Figure 2 of Welch shows a geared output shaft,
an internally and externally geared roller and an internally geared stator whereas the
instant claimed invention has no gearing and that claim 1 Anow positively recites
the absence of gear teeth which is different from Welch's teachings [brief-page 6].
As the examiner points out [answer-page 4], instant claim 1 contains no
recitation of the absence of gear teeth because the amendment after final was
refused entry. Accordingly, appellant's argument in this regard is not persuasive
since it is based on limitations which do not appear in the claim. Moreover, as the
examiner again points out, Welch teaches the use of gear teeth to be a preference
but clearly recognizes that an embodiment having no gear teeth may be used. See
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
8
Figures 3-5 and column 3, lines 35-56 of Welch.
Appellant also argues that there is an air gap between the stator and roller in
the instant invention that remains constant for all poles regardless of roller location
and that this is a principal feature of the instant invention which
allows for high torque and high power density. Appellant points out that Welch does
not describe the use of repelling forces to increase torque or efficiency and that
Welch has a variable air gap which would preclude realizing the benefits of utilizing
the repulsive forces [brief-page 6].
Whether or not appellant's allegations are true, the argument is again
unpersuasive because it is based on limitations not appearing in claim 1. The
claim recites nothing about an air gap, constant or otherwise.
Finally, appellant argues that Welch is designed to be used as a stepper
motor and is not concerned with the eccentric forces generated by a single offset
roller if driven to provide steady state output revolutions whereas the instant
invention is Aintended to supply steady state output revolutions [brief-page 7].
Once again, appellant presents an argument directed to limitations which do not
appear in the claim. Accordingly, since all of appellant's arguments regarding
independent claim 1 are directed to limitations not appearing in the claim, the
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
9
arguments are not persuasive and do not overcome the prima facie case of
anticipation established by the examiner.
The examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) is sustained.
With regard to claim 2, the examiner relies on the teaching of Jacobsen, at
column 5, to provide for the suggestion of a push-pull movement provided by
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
10
magnetic fields. The examiner then combines this with the teaching of Welch in
order to improve efficiency and increase torque.
Appellant's response is to argue that Jacobsen fails to consider the effect of
large air gaps while appellant Arelies on the large forces developed by small gap
solenoids and provides a mechanism to efficiently realize the potential
afforded by the repelling forces [brief-page 8]. However, appellant fails to point
to any particular structure in the instant claims on which he relies and it appears that
appellant is again arguing limitations which do not appear in the claims.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Claim 3 adds the limitation that the number of stator poles is one more than
the number of roller poles. While recognizing that the combination of Welch and
Jacobsen does not provide for this limitation, the examiner notes that Welch
suggests that the revolutions of the output shaft are dependent on the relative
diameters of the stator, rotor and output shaft ring and that these parameters could
then be varied to produce the required output to match with the number of stator
poles. However, since Burgbacher teaches, at column 2, lines 36-45, that the
number of stator poles should be one greater than the number of rotor poles in
order to reduce torque fluctuations, the examiner held it
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
11
to be obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to have applied Burgbacher's
teaching to the combination of Welch and Jacobsen.
Appellant argues that the limitation of claim 3 determines the speed of
rotation of one of the output shafts not the difference in diameter as in the abstract
teaching of Welch [brief-page 9]. The arguments are based on
increasing differences in the number of poles versus changing diameters. It is not
clear what specific claim limitations appellant is relying on in making this
argument and it appears that, once again, appellant argues limitations not
appearing in the claims.
Appellant also argues that Burgbacher teaches that the additional pole is for
reducing torque fluctuations rather than for developing rotation as does appellant's
device. If a reference suggests the limitation set forth in appellant's claim, it does
not matter that the reference makes the suggestion for a reason different from that
of appellant. If the suggestion for the modification is clear in the prior art, and we
find no argument by appellant that Burgbacher does not suggest the limitation in
question, then the reason as to why the prior art suggests the modification appears
to be irrelevant.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 3, and of claim 4, which falls
with claim 3, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
12
With regard to claim 5, the examiner brings in the reference to Kawai for the
teaching that [g]enerally, the greater the number of electromagnets, the smoother
the turning movement of the motor [Kawai, column 2, lines 36-38]. The examiner
then uses this teaching to hold that the use of twelve roller poles and thirteen stator
poles would have been obvious, in view of Kawai's teaching
taken together with Welch, Jacobsen and Burgbacher. In our view, the examiner
has made out a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues only that the instant invention is materially and substantially
different than the discoveries of Welch, Jacobsen and
Burgbacher [brief-page 11] and proceeds to discuss diameters not being varied to
produce the required output to match the stator poles. Appellant's argument clearly
fails to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner
with regard to claim 5. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim
5 under 35 U.S.C. '103.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, the examiner combines Satake's plurality of
roller poles arranged around the cylindrical outer surface of the roller so that the
poles alternate in polarity (citing Satake's Figure 12) with the roller-type motor of
Welch.
Appellant argues that Satake's arrangement is typical of a conventional
rotating machine [brief-page 12] and that the instant device is totally different
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
13
from that depicted by FIG. 12 of Satake, arguing that the stator poles of the instant
device have surface areas which extend beyond the cylindrical edge of the roller@
and that the air gap in the submittal design is axial to the roller [brief-page 12]. We
agree with the examiner that the argued surface areas extending beyond the
cylindrical edge and the air gap being axial to the roller are not limitations of the
claimed subject matter and therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
At pages 12-13 of the brief, appellant sets forth the examiner's reasoning
with regard to the rejection of instant claim 8 but makes no argument as to
perceived errors in the examiner's reasoning. Accordingly, we will also sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 9 and 11, appellant makes no argument as to the
merits of the examiner's rejection, noting only that they are dependent claims
Awhich incorporate the elements of the earlier claims [brief-page 14]. Accordingly,
these claims will fall with the claims from which they depend.
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
14
The examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) and
claims 2-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR ' 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2947
Application No. 08/682,876
15
OFFICE OF COUNSEL, BLDG. 112T
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER
DIVISION NEWPORT
1176 HOWELL STREET
NEWPORT, RI 02841-1708